In our city, alot of the houses and belongings we're saving aren't the ones that are on fire, but the ones that are exposures. It's very common for us to aggressively attack a known vacant/abandoned/decrepit structure because the occupied structure next to it is in immediate danger. (up to and including all ready being on fire on the exposed side)

I suppose though it's all in what you're used to. For alot of the posters on here 3 upstairs rooms and part of an attic would be called an "immediate defensive protection strategy."

I agree w/ Firemedic the fire started in the rear and extened into the home. There is probably a good fire burning in the attic space.

As for the PPV. I think venting the windows would have been a better idea.

I did not see an attenpt to make the roof. I think a hole in the roof if it was possible would have been a great idea.

There is alot of smoke showing, and not alot of fire showing here. I do believe an aggressive interior attack into the attic space and a quick knockdown in the rear would lead to a successful save here.

Are you being sarcastic or for real w/vacant homes?? Let me ask you a question if you are serious about never entering a vacant building. How do you know it's vacant? Just because it's boarded up does not mean there is no one in the building (homeless folks for example).

We must ensure there is no one in this vacant home before we just go defensive if condition allow and if the fire is placed under control while searching, even better. Once the search is complete and if no progress is being made, sure pull out and flood the building. At that point risking a FF's life is not worth it. I think most will agree

40,you SO don't wanna go down this road.Or suffer the diatribe from going there.98.9% of US firefighters would.LA from the Parish IS NOT in that group. There's NO problem with vacants and the Sheriff confirms this. I'll take his word for it. We search 'em here. T.C,

Not sure if the PPV fan was running, but it definately seemed to be in the way.

Again, from the limited views provided............

Kind of looked like an outside fire extending to the outside of the building and up into the attic(?) space. Probably would've put the first line around back to hit the fire there. Plus there appears to be an exposure issue back there.

Not sure, but by watching it appears they perform positive-pressure attack. While in it may be in the way, it has to be in a position in front of the door and room is often limited on smaller porches such as that one.

By pressurizing the house, you can keep the fire in the attic (if it's there and ventilated, which it appeared to be) and keep an exterior fire (which it appeared to be, as two structures were on fire with the two vehicles between) exterior by pressurizing the interior of the structure.

We use PPA on both of my departments and have had good success with it, when it'd done right and in the right circumstances. It's not a tactic you can use on every building or every fire, but it can and does work.

Originally Posted by WebFire

For one, the fan is WAY too close to the door to do an effective job. You have to have an air seal around the door.

With newer fans, that's not necessarily true. They are more effective if you have the "cone" of air fully encapsulating the door, but a venturi effect pulls air around the fan shroud and creates a seal. Plus, you'll note the fan they use has no shroud, only a wire cage, which allows air to come out at a broader angle from the blades rather than focusing it like a shrouded fan.

>>What do you think about their use of PPV, myself I would have ordered the fan thrown through the window for better results. Again I would have taken the front door and started there. <<

If I were king, I would make PPV illegal.

Check out the research that NIST is doing on "wind driven fires" and you will see exactly why.

Have you checked out such research from positivepressureattack, or the two battalion chiefs from Salt Lake City who do the presentation? Quite an eye opener for positive pressure applications. Also, NIST has several CD's and videos of positive pressure attack and indicates pros and cons. (available through the National Fire Academy)

PPV is NOT the answer for all fires, but is definately a tool that can be very effective if used properly.

On this side of the world, Sweden are seen as forerunners of PPV attack, they have done massive amounts of studies and training. We're tailing along as good as we can. It works, but not in every single situation. I can however fully understand why the fan was placed there and I would also have placed a fan there.

Have you checked out such research from positivepressureattack, or the two battalion chiefs from Salt Lake City who do the presentation? Quite an eye opener for positive pressure applications. Also, NIST has several CD's and videos of positive pressure attack and indicates pros and cons. (available through the National Fire Academy)

PPV is NOT the answer for all fires, but is definately a tool that can be very effective if used properly.

The short answer is no, we do not operate in abandoned structures unless we have a reason to beleive there may be occupants.

How about the fact it is on fire? Things may be different by you but here in the North we have vacant buildings that can sit for 10 or more years and never spontaneously combust. If it is vacant and especially if the utilities are cut and burning we assume that someone IS in the structure.

As for fire conditions on arrival, the fire is in the attic and going good. The smoke tells us that. very much a fire that can be stopped and plenty to save for the residents. I wouldn't have used PPV. Very good video for the importance of a 360